PDA

View Full Version : Speaking of Silver and Gold...



Kelly
27th March 2008, 10:36
I like peculiar little tidbits of history about silver and gold. Did you know, for instance, that prior to about 656 BC, it was silver rather than gold that was the world's preferred currency? The gold standard wasn't really anybodies standard until gold, which is harder to mine, became readily available and was minted into coins. It was gold that actually gave birth to paper money that was "backed by gold" way back when currency actually represented a tangible commodity.

For those who may be a bit shy about admitting that you don't really understand how money is actually created today, here is the video for you. It's a painless and simple little animated video that explains things in such clear and remarkable terms, you'll be very glad you watched it.

In fact, if you've got kids over the age of ten sit down and watch this little video with them, because it's going to give your kids a lesson in money that will probably never be taught them in school.

This is the plain and simple, clear and concise way to understand that the dollars we have today which are not backed by silver or gold do have to be backed by something; so today our dollars are backed by debt. Mountains and mountains and mountains of debt…

And when you watch it, you'll understand why everybody with any brains is telling you that you MUST take physical possession of your silver and gold.

Watch "Money as Debt." This video is a winner…

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279

Daveman
27th March 2008, 14:03
No, this video is not a winner, Kelly. It is just bait...advocating government created credit over that of private banker created credit. Like the two makes a facking difference.

NOTHING, BUT NOTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER WILL DO. Is there any part of it ANYONE on this board does not understand?

Kelly
27th March 2008, 15:04
I beg to differ. This video is a winner in terms of simply explaining fractional reserve banking and how money is created today to those who do not understand it yet.

And since you have read my posts before, you should already know that I have repeatedly said to not only get rid of the Fed, but return to a silver and gold standard. Have I not?

Do you think for a moment that I was not going to say so in this thread?

Or did you just wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning and need to go take a chill pill?

elixer
27th March 2008, 17:04
If it was just a return to gold and silver then the same dark banking structures would simply take control of the new system too. A new banking system would require a new financial structure that was unable to be controlled by cartels hidden from view.

Kelly
27th March 2008, 17:05
I couldn't agree with you more.

Daveman
27th March 2008, 17:26
I beg to differ. This video is a winner in terms of simply explaining fractional reserve banking and how money is created today to those who do not understand it yet.

And since you have read my posts before, you should already know that I have repeatedly said to not only get rid of the Fed, but return to a silver and gold standard. Have I not?

Do you think for a moment that I was not going to say so in this thread?

Or did you just wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning and need to go take a chill pill?
I watched the video to the end, Kelly, it was very sympathetic to the government and very hostile (deservedly) toward the bankers.

The government and the bankers are NOW one and the same. No difference between them.

Kelly
27th March 2008, 17:35
Dave, I chose that video because it was simple and basic. THEN I was going to suggest that people learn a little more and watch this video...


"Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson understood "The Monster". But to most Americans today, Federal Reserve is just a name on the dollar bill. They have no idea of what the central bank does to the economy, or to their own economic lives; of how and why it was founded and operates; or of the sound money and banking that could end the statism, inflation, and business cycles that the Fed generates."

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-466210540567002553&q=Money&total=339285&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=4

These guys BELIEVE IN A SILVER AND GOLD BACKED ECONOMY.

Had you bothered to wait before you so rudely jumped on me, you would have found out that there actually is a method to my madness...

The Fed is hard enough to understand. I figured the best way was just one step at a time.


The government and the bankers are NOW one and the same. No difference between them.

That is because the government cannot survive without money and they realize who prints it. Get rid of the FED and Washington DC might actually have to THINK and work on solving problems for a change.

Most of the people we elect aren't all that bad, at least when they start out. But they unfortunately quickly find out that you do not survive in Washington DC without genuflecting to the Fed. It is a grim state of affairs.

Daveman
27th March 2008, 19:12
I appreciate, and agree, with your effort to educate the masses. I cannot imagine how much time it cost you to find all those videos and links; you're certainly doing more than I am. For that, I openly admit you have my admiration as a patriot to this country.

I also do find the first half of the video (the goldsmith into banker part) very educational and entertaining for the uninitiated, but the second half I still am uncomfortable with.




That is because the government cannot survive without money and they realize who prints it. Get rid of the FED and Washington DC might actually have to THINK and work on solving problems for a change.

Most of the people we elect aren't all that bad, at least when they start out. But they unfortunately quickly find out that you do not survive in Washington DC without genuflecting to the Fed. It is a grim state of affairs.

Kelly, get rid of the Fed and the guys in our government will create another one. You seem to think that our poor and helpless government has been taken hostage by some private bankers and that if they can only be freed of their shackles tomorrow will be a better day.

My last post still stands: The government and the bankers are the same. One created the other.

As for your belief that most of the people we elect aren't that bad, at least not initially, I am also very skeptical about, but have no evidence to form an opinion on that as of now.

Kelly
27th March 2008, 20:45
The government and the bankers are the same. One created the other.

Daveman, our government did not start out that way. Read the constitution.


Kelly, get rid of the Fed and the guys in our government will create another one.

No they won't; not if we don't let them. And in order to make sure they can NEVER create another one, we, the people, have to create another system to take its place, and that system has to shine! It has to be so much better than the Fed ever thought of being, that the people, our representatives and our senators can see it and believe in it.

Please, stop telling me we can't do that, because as long as you believe that, it won't ever happen.

Instead, use that great brain you've got, (and I know you have a good brain 'cuz I've read your posts) and put everything you've got into helping us figure out what we have to do so that this horror never, ever happens again.

We have to create an economic system that Washington DC CANNOT misuse.

And from my point of view, once we get rid of the Fed, the only way to make sure that our government does not misuse its power, is to make sure that they have to come to THE PEOPLE if they want one thin dime to spend.

That is why I am suggesting that we create a silver and gold backed "Credit Union" type system that is owned by THE PEOPLE. And DC wouldn't get any money until the people who owned the Credit Union (the citizens of the United States) approved their budget proposal. One citizen = One person = One vote.

That ought to put an end to pork barrel spending in a hurry.

TTAZZMAN
27th March 2008, 22:01
a good site with lots of current articles and videos is

silverbearcafe.com

Daveman
27th March 2008, 22:11
Kelly, the system that was put into place by the founders of this country was pretty much (still is?) as good as anything we can ever come up with. No, it is probably much better than all of our combined efforts.

And yet it still failed (today).


It is vigilance and dignity that will uphold any system, regardless of how brilliant or well thought out the system is.


Look at those around you. Go to anyone of our college campuses today. Do you see vigilance? Dignity? You know as well as I do that the majority of this country does not understand what we speak of here, much less agree with us.

What's killing this country isn't the system's flaws, for the system was fine (you said it started out fine yourself). It was corrupted by men. By the the citizens of this country, either through their moral corruption or willful ignorance.

We can't do too much about the spiritual state of this country; people choose for themselves what kind of corrupt government they rule over them, and Americans are too weak, too greedy, too content, "too fat" (figuratively) to be willing to work and sweat for change.
They rather have their big screen TV in their subprim mortgaged house.

FedFixNix
27th March 2008, 22:14
This thread is also good, although "Doublespeak 101" is more informative.

I'll have to wait until I have more time before getting into specific solutions. You and I have both generalized the way to go. That is the way our constitution and founding fathers intended: to have the government treasury create, issue and control the fundamental money supply. It could be fiat money, which is based purely on the law or fiat (degree). I know most here will disagree with that, but it is because of centuries of Fed brainwashing, disinformation, and propaganda that they have sold to our entire nation, and to most of the world.

More later.

"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws!" ― Mayer Anselm Rothschild ("Father" of modern central banking)

FedFixNix
27th March 2008, 22:19
http://www.monetary.org/

This organization really does understand the problem, and offers the solutions.

Kelly
27th March 2008, 22:34
Thanks for the link FedFixNix (love the name by the way).

You may be certain that I shall be buried in that site reading away this evening. I like the "greening" thing already.

Let me read a bit and I'll get back to you. OK?

FedFixNix
27th March 2008, 23:19
Sure thing, Kelly. Take your time. And maybe you might also google "The Money Masters". Its a website and a video, and both are great resources of exceptional and honest thinking.

Kelly
28th March 2008, 00:12
I have watched the "Money Masters" three times. It's the best damn history of the Fed and what really happened in America that there is on the net!

It was going to be my next link on this thread.

So here it is folks. There is none better...

WATCH IT!!! :-)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-515319560256183936&q=The+Money+Masters&total=971&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

"If ever again our nation stumbles upon unfunded paper, it shall surely be like death to our body politic. This country will crash." - George Washington

offgrid
28th March 2008, 02:24
Thanks fedfixnix. Nice to see usury brought up, which I think is a major problem or root of our current woes (also a major reason I don't like banks holding my money). http://www.monetary.org/usurytalk.htm

For a compliment/contrast:
http:///www.silverstockreport.com/revised/Freedom_from_Usury(revised).html

gypsybiker45
28th March 2008, 07:03
Daveman, our government did not start out that way. Read the constitution.



No they won't; not if we don't let them. And in order to make sure they can NEVER create another one, we, the people, have to create another system to take its place, and that system has to shine! It has to be so much better than the Fed ever thought of being, that the people, our representatives and our senators can see it and believe in it.

Please, stop telling me we can't do that, because as long as you believe that, it won't ever happen.

Instead, use that great brain you've got, (and I know you have a good brain 'cuz I've read your posts) and put everything you've got into helping us figure out what we have to do so that this horror never, ever happens again.

We have to create an economic system that Washington DC CANNOT misuse.

And from my point of view, once we get rid of the Fed, the only way to make sure that our government does not misuse its power, is to make sure that they have to come to THE PEOPLE if they want one thin dime to spend.

That is why I am suggesting that we create a silver and gold backed "Credit Union" type system that is owned by THE PEOPLE. And DC wouldn't get any money until the people who owned the Credit Union (the citizens of the United States) approved their budget proposal. One citizen = One person = One vote.

That ought to put an end to pork barrel spending in a hurry.

Surely ,you dont mean that! a credit union treasury? how would/could this operate? we are a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY. i have a job to maintain as im sure most do here, ever look at the budget? to individually vote on every single line item would be a full time job! people wouldnt go to vote and then a few UNELECTED people vote everything their way as soon as they figured that out, no we need a metals backed currency, and people need to pay better attention to who they put in office, and ban all lobbyists, period

Kelly
28th March 2008, 14:06
Gypsy Biker,

Well, I certainly will agree about the ban on lobbyists. I would add election reform as a high priority as well.

I have long been a proponant that Americans need to take a far more active role in government and that it wouldn't be that hard to do. When the senate writes a bill that will get voted on, I'd like to see that bill published over an internet site with a "yes" or "no" button beside it, so that Americans can let our government know how we feel about it, and have some say so.

That kind of thing wouldn't be hard to do, nor take that much time out of anybody's life. We can do it over the internet. Cripes, people vote on American Idol every week, so what is so hard about setting up that kind of system? There would have to be some way to protect the voting from manipulation. And there may be weeks when some people don't want to take the time to read the bills or vote.

Never-the-less, I believe that today there would be enough interested people in America willing to take the time to vote over the internet, and I think the people's vote should count as much as the vote of congress.

I am purely fed up with the way our government works today. And I don't see that writting letters to my congressmen does a hell of a lot of good. You just get the "thank you for your concern" letter back and never hear another word.

You might be concerned about the time that it would take to vote on budgets in a banking system set up more like a credit union, where the citizens literally own the bank, but I believe we must take the control AWAY from the hands of the Fed, and I think congress needs some oversight from the public, because in my opinion, they spend irresponsibly.

Personally, I'd like the see the single Mom with three kids who manages to keep a roof over her head and her kids fed on $10 an hour have a say in the budget because that person has experience in learning how to budget herself. I'd like to see the small business owner who makes a success of his business because he spends what he has with wisdom have a chance to vote on the government budget.

I think "the little guy" knows a hell of a lot more about budgeting than congress does, and furthermore, I think the same people know how to do it right. Right now, congress doesn't listen to the people. If they want advice on budget, they hire some wall street top dogs to the tune of 1.5 m to tell them what to do.

That's my money. That's your money. And that's the money all of us are paying interest on to the Fed.

In a government of the people, for the people, and by the people, I want some damn say so!

And I suspect a lot of people out there feel the same way.

When our constitution was set up it was set up to deal with the communication network of the day; next to nil in other words. Today I believe there should be a fourth branch of the government and that branch should be comprised of American citizens who have the right to vote on the same things congress does. The internet gives everyone the opportunity to do that, and that's an opportunity our forefathers didn't have when they wrote the constitution.

Today, I don't vote in every single local election that comes up. I miss some and vote in others. So don't worry about it if you wouldn't always have the time to vote. Do you think every senator and representitive is present for all votes? Heck no they aren't. There will be times when you do vote, and that's what counts.

Kelly
28th March 2008, 14:51
We are a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY.

I am so glad you brought this up. We are so often referred to as a "democracy" by the press, and that's wrong.

Actually, we are a democratic republic. A lot of people don't really understand that. We vote, just like every other democratic nation on earth. The difference is that we are a democratic REPUBLIC, which means that our forefathers determined that there would be certain rights granted to the citizens of the United States that were to remain forever. They were rights that were not subject to the vote of a democratic majority, and our forefathers did that for a reason.

Today, we have a controlled media that regularly "spins" the news in order to influence public opinion. In a democracy where only majority rule determines the fate of the country, it's very easy to manipulate voting by "spinning" the news. While there are very positive things about a democratic system, the flip-side of that is that "mob rule" is also a majority. And mobs are very easy to rule, particularly by a charismatic leader that can manipulate the public via grandiose speeches, much like Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Lenin were able to do.

When our forefathers set up the United States as a democratic REPUBLIC, they guaranteed us certain rights that could never be taken away by majority vote, let alone mob rule.

We have a controlled press EXCEPT over the internet. The net is where true Freedom of Speech reigns today, and I am thankful for it. I can read the opinions of economists who also think the Fed is making big mistakes, and their opinion differs considerably from the talking heads on national news, or the manipulated opinions of the national press.

We know the major banks BOUGHT the media out years ago.

Here are some of my favorite quotes concerning the press…And this manipulation of the press is WHY our forefathers had the foresight to create the United States of America as a democratic REPUBLIC!

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, it expects what never was and never will be ... The People cannot be safe without information. When the press is free, and every man is able to read, all is safe." - Thomas Jefferson

"These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of the newspapers and the columns in those papers to club into submission or drive out of office officials who refuse to do the bidding of the powerful corrupt cliques which compose the invisible government." - Theodore Roosevelt as reported in the New York Times, March 27th, 1922

"This warning of Theodore Roosevelt has as much timelessness today, for the real menace to our republic is this invisible government which spreads its tentacles like a giant octopus and sprawls its slimy length over city, state and nation. It seizes in its long and powerful tentacles our executive officers, our legislative bodies, our schools, our courts, our newspapers and every agency created for the public protection…To depart from mere generalizations, let me say that at the head of this octopus are the Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests and a small group of powerful banking houses generally referred to as the international bankers. The little coterie of powerful international bankers virtually run the United States government for their own selfish purposes. They practically control both parties, write political platforms, make cat's-paws of party leaders, use the leading men of private organizations, and resort to every device to place in nomination for high public office only such candidates as will be amenable to the dictates of corrupt big business. These international bankers and Rockefeller-Standard Oil interests control the majority of newspapers and magazines in this country." - John Hylan, Mayor of New York City, quoted in the New York Times, 1922

"There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. You know it and I know it. There is not one of you who dares to write your honest opinions, and if you did, you know beforehand that it would never appear in print. I am paid weekly for keeping my honest opinion out of the paper I am connected with. Others of you are paid similar weekly salaries for similar things, and any of you who would be so foolish as to write honest opinions would be out on the streets looking for another job. If I allowed my honest opinions to appear in one issue of my paper, before twenty-four hours my occupation would be gone. The business of the journalists is to destroy the truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify; to fawn at the feet of mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it, and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals of rich men behind the scenes. We are the jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities, and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes." - John Swinton, former Chief of Staff for the New York Times, toast before the New York Press Club, 1953

My guess is this last quote said in a toast before the press made more than a few influential members of the press choke on their toddies...

DaveK
28th March 2008, 16:07
First, I'm a new guy here, so I apologize if this is too off-topic for the location, I don't yet have a good feel for how much latitude is generally acceptable here.

Interesting comments in this thread and others regarding the monetary system.

I've watched most of the monetary system videos out there (multiple times, which, with The Money Masters being 3.5 hours, is quite a chore), and it seems to me that a money backed by metals is the wrong answer.

In the past gold and silver were useful as money partially because they are difficult to counterfeit well. This was important because that feature was one of the primary defenses against counterfeiting, which undermines the utility of money. Today we have other ways to prevent counterfeiting, so this innate feature of precious metals is not as compelling as it has been in the past. Also, our vastly improved technical capacity has made this feature of precious metals less of a guarantee anyway, nearly anyone with a reasonable amount of skill can learn to mint extremely good quality coins.

Since the quantity of gold and silver is very limited, and because the speed at which the economy can grow today (as a result of the vastly increased numbers of people and the improved technology), it is necessary to increase the circulating money supply much faster than is possible with precious metals. If this is not done then the value of the money changes over time, which is not a desirable characteristic of money.

We could use a number of different currencies, all backed by different commodities, but because the exchange rates between these would always be changing this would be a major inefficiency for businesses.

A fiat currency is better because it can (though not necessarily 'will') be managed to provide a stable currency. The major problem we have with fiat currency today is that the people have allowed the banks to create a system where money can only be created by creating debt, and the only a small group of people are allowed to perform this service. This is great for banks of course, but is restrictive and unfair.

A better system, as hinted at in Debt as Money, is to have the government eliminate the bank's privilege to create money (by gradually reducing the reserve ratio) and then to have the government pay all of it's expenses with government-issued, non-debt money (also gradually, at a rate that balances what is avoided as a result of the shrinking reserve ratio).

Eventually all banks completely lose the ability to create money and only earn income from lending their capital instead of performing the service of money creation. The government then balances federal taxes with spending on services and infrastructure in order to manage the money supply. No entity other than the federal government may create US currency, and I personally would prefer an amendment to the Constitution that prohibits the government from delegating this authority. The People grant that privilege to only the federal government, and none other.

There are still lots of ways to exploit the system of course, starting with how government contracts are awarded (nothing new there), and who pays how much tax (also nothing new). Taxes would probably best be handled as a flat, no-exemptions sales tax (possibly with a quarterly fixed-amount refund based on poverty level income) managed by region (to allow the government some measure of control to balance money supply by region).

Just my idea of what a reasonable system might look like.

Kelly
28th March 2008, 17:45
Welcome to the forum, Dave K. You put out a darn good post, by the way.

I have to agree with you on the subject of currency backed by commodities. When we had a silver and gold backed dollar decades ago, we didn't have internet future's commodity trading where wild swings in prices occur in a system that supposedly establishes the market value of any particular commodity on the whims of paper trading speculators who actually have no interest in the underlying hard asset. Based on the evidence, I think the folks who've made a game out of paper trading futures contracts ought to be kicked out of the game. Most of the folks on this forum can see what happens when speculators play games with the metals, but in my opinion the reality of how playing that game effects people all over the world is very evident, particularly in food commodities. You can paper trade the price of a ton of corn, wheat or rice too, and drive the price up or down on a whim. But it's not a whim to the people of the world; many of whom live in poverty and rely on those items to feed their families. Speculative paper trading of commodities can cause people in third world countries to starve to death. And I think it ought to be against the law. The prices do not reflect the true laws of supply and demand. If speculators really want to gamble, we've got casinos for that, they don't need to do it with other people's lives.

The idea of a gold backed dollar seems especially unwise. For thousands of years now, the wealthy of the world have been trading fiat currency for gold, so in a gold backed economy, the power would once again be held completely in the hands of the wealthy few which is a step I personally think should be avoided at all costs. FedNixFix pointed that out on another thread, and he's right.

On the other hand, silver makes somewhat more sense because today it is valued considerably less than gold and hasn't necessarily been the metal of choice for stockpiling by the wealthy few. However as silver becomes more rare and it's usefulness more apparent, that may not always be the case. But I also do not necessarily buy into the "running out of silver" theory yet either, because with perhaps the exception of the Asian countries, many silver mines were shut down and not because the silver wasn't there, the mines shut down because it was simply too expensive to mine when silver traded at $6 and under. I suspect that there is still plenty of silver to be mined in America, Mexico and South America. And Gold? Well, it's not really that rare. More gold is taken out of the ground today than there was during the famous gold rush days. In my state people pan for gold all the time and a lot of them find it too. I panned for gold a couple of times. I didn't find any gold but I sure had a lot of fun.

There is a case to be made for a gold or silver backed currency, but there is an equally good case for a fiat currency. As the video "The Money Masters" clearly points out, Lincoln's greenback dollar served this country well for years, and had it not been for the manipulations of the bankers, a government printed greenback dollar would probably still be serving this country well.

How ever the issue of currency is ultimately settled, the most important thing seems to be that it be government printed, and not in the hands of a private banking corporation like the Fed. And secondly, we have to end fractional reserve banking which is enslaving the people of this country, if not the whole world. I believe, absolutely, that we must also settle the issue of usury, i.e. the interest payment on any debt. For instance, a 2.5% interest rate established by the Fed sounds like cheap enough money, but that hasn't stopped the banks issuing credit cards from charging 20% or higher from their customers at the slightest whim, and that is the kind of usury that qualifies as abjectly immoral in my book.

I don't have any confidence at this point in the planned Amero, because to date, I see no indication that there are any plans to eliminate the Fed or fractional reserve banking in the process. The Canadians certainly do not want a currency tied to the Federal Reserve System, (who can blame them) and the Mexican bank system seems no less conceived in graft and subterfuge than our own dollar system, so perhaps they'd feel right at home buying into the Fed's Amero program.

I want a currency that works for the people, and I don't see how trading a dollar for an Amero is going to change anything at all, when to date, it looks to be a plan initiated by the same wealthy few now controlling the Fed.

And I would be particularly opposed to a gold backed Amero, because I absolutely know that bankers have been trading their deceitfully derived profits from the fractional reserve game for gold since they conned this country into passing the Glass Owen Act.

The greenback fiat currency mandated by Lincoln and issued by our government worked. I would certainly prefer that to an Amero backed by gold.

I am riding the fence on silver however. And one of the reasons why is because silver has uses that truly cannot be accomplished by any other metal. It is necessary for telecommunications, electronics and it is especially necessary for this nation's defense. Using silver to back a currency at this stage of the game means that America would have to stock pile an absolutely necessary commodity which would, in essence, force us to save silver for the future, which really isn't such a bad idea. In essence, that silver would be put in a trust that might one day have to be used for absolutely necessary reasons, and those reasons might have a lot to do with defending our country at some future date. Silver is finite, just like oil is finite. And I should think, having now reached the point of peak oil, we'd be able to see how a severe shortage of a necessary commodity can put our nation at great risk.

I am extremely delighted to take part on a forum where people actually talk about such things. Most people don't even think about it, much less talk about it and this forum is exceptionally unique in that manner.

I think that is very cool.

FedFixNix
28th March 2008, 20:29
The Money Masters and Money as Debt are the two best educational films or videos on the monetary crisis I've yet seen.

The best book on the subject, hands down - bar none, is The Lost Science of Money by Steven Zarlenga. It banned by Amazon (falsely listed as "unavailable) and most bookstores, but is well worth taking added effort to obtain and read. It can be ordered directly through the website of the American Monetary Institute, (http://www.monetary.org) (AMI).

These last posts have been great by you tow guys. All Kelly's posts are exceptional. I've rarely seen such dedicated and prodigious substance on BBs of any kind.

DaveK
28th March 2008, 23:19
Welcome to the forum, Dave K. You put out a darn good post, by the way.


Thanks, glad someone finds them useful :)



Speculative paper trading of commodities can cause people in third world countries to starve to death. And I think it ought to be against the law. The prices do not reflect the true laws of supply and demand.


I understand the ire, but I think that making such rules would be contrary to the nature of the free market. I believe that many people believe that such trading deprives the market of needed products, but I'm not sure it's that straightforward. It's also an enormous subject, and while I'm sure it would be fascinating to research and discuss, this probably isn't the place, and I'm trying to stay focused on preparing for a post-peak world.



On the other hand, silver makes somewhat more sense because today it is valued considerably less than gold and hasn't necessarily been the metal of choice for stockpiling by the wealthy few.


It wouldn't matter, as long as those in power continue to cooperate to slant the system in their favor. They would simply set about controlling the sliver or manipulate the system such that they did not need control of it. Bank-controlled fiat currency is just one of the more powerful tools that has been employed to gain selfish advantage.

The best strategy to combat this cooperation, IMO, is simplicity and transparency. The bewildering volumes of laws we have to regulate the system, the insanity that is our tax code, for example, serves as excellent cover for those with the time and financial incentive to learn and manipulate it's intricacies.



I believe, absolutely, that we must also settle the issue of usury, i.e. the interest payment on any debt.


I don't have a problem with the concept of paying interest, I think that is a natural and reasonable act, but I do agree that there is a problem with high interest lending. Again, that's a whole other discussion.



I want a currency that works for the people, and I don't see how trading a dollar for an Amero is going to change anything at all, when to date, it looks to be a plan initiated by the same wealthy few now controlling the Fed.


Agreed. Don't expect to see any change to the way currency is managed until it is necessary for business to create a scheme where wealth can be transferred in the 'correct' direction in a shrinking economy, which will operate with distinctly different rules than today's growing economy.

It's tinfoil hat stuff for most people, but I'm open to the idea that continued globalization will lead directly to the creation of a North American Union with a political and power structure similar to the EU. I don't think it is implausible that a major dollar collapse is ahead as a necessary step in this process. In principle I'm not totally opposed to such a merger, but in practice I think that it will result in a drastic weakening of our civil rights.



Silver is finite, just like oil is finite. And I should think, having now reached the point of peak oil, we'd be able to see how a severe shortage of a necessary commodity can put our nation at great risk.


I've already stated why I think that commodities don't have the attributes necessary to operate as money in a large managed economy. Your observation above is one of those reasons.

As for peak oil, that is something we'll see in the rear-view. The recent numbers have total crude up to 74.2m b/d, just 100k below the all time high set about this time in '05, and total liquids at an all-time high of 87.5m b/d. It's coming, but this is still the plateau.

The idea of 'peak silver' (or peak everything) is interesting, another pointer that humanity needs to learn to transition away from a growth phase sooner rather than later.

FedFixNix
29th March 2008, 16:55
DaveK,

This is a great dialogue, and you make some excellent points that I'd like to expand on when I have more time.

I would especially like to go into some depth about the nature of "free markets" and how they are defined, the territories they encompass, and the means of insuring that they are truly as "free" as possible.

Such a discussion would also necessarily entail some ideas of what degree of laws or regulations must exist and be enforced so that markets can indeed remain "free".

I have some definite, but very unpopular, views about the needed conditions that must exist in order for people in any sphere of endeavor to be "free" or remain for for any length of time. Among these are the concept that the notion of "absolute and unlimited" freedom in any human sphere of action is a product of fanciful minds, wishful unrealistic thinking, or outright deception and sophistry.

These notions might seem counterintuitive at forst, as they run counter to popular mythology. They serve a good purpose for the mythmakers, in allowing them to control the masses.

My point is most simply illustrated by David Korten in his excellent book, When Corporations Rule the World. That is that true liberty can only exist within a system of laws that reflect the limits of one person's "freedoms" to dominate of exploit another. In my view this is the basis of that kind of evolving behavior known as culture or civilization.

In other words, unlimited or unrestricted freedom is a myth. It doesn't even totally exist among packs or groups of higher mammals like dogs, whales, horses, dolphin, or elephants, even though the rules are unwritten, there are still "rules", and those who break them must pay a price for doing so... usually death, injury, or ostracism.

But getting back to more highly evolved people and our "civilizations" or systems of customs, laws, and rules, there simply is no such thing as absolute freedom. Absolute freedom leads inevitably to absolute tyranny!

And so it is with markets. Unrestricted markets must lead to the monopolistic domination of those markets by the dominant players. Most arguments for "hands-off", laissez-faire, unregulated economies are simply attempts by monopolies (be they economic or political) to maintain or extend their monopolistic power.

And speaking of power, that's really what its all about. Material Power. Power to control people, markets, groups, towns, states, nations, and so on, until a few megalomaniacs want to try controlling the entire world. That's what the NWO is all about. Economic, social, political, and finally, intellectual control, I.e., Orwellian "Doublethink" is the object of this game.

Again, I welcome all comments on these issues, and am grateful to have thinkers of the caliber of Kelly and DaveK contributing here.

Refreshing indeed.

DaveK
31st March 2008, 11:20
DaveK,
This is a great dialogue, and you make some excellent points that I'd like to expand on when I have more time.


Thank you for the kind words, I look forward to hearing your thoughts.



I would especially like to go into some depth about the nature of "free markets" and how they are defined, the territories they encompass, and the means of insuring that they are truly as "free" as possible.


From your comments here I suspect we have similar opinions on the subject. I suppose most of my beliefs about how a free market should work have to do with ensuring that people are able to make informed choices about their transactions. Without information about the product or service it difficult for people to make rational decisions.

For a market to be free it must provide the information necessary to allow consumers to make ethical decisions about their product choices. Coincidentally, I watched the movie 'Blood Diamond' last night, a story about the diamond trade in Sierra Leon and how it was used to fund war. Most consumers would not knowingly purchase diamonds sourced under such conditions, and so in order for the consumer to make rational decisions about their purchases, they must know about the source of the product.

Another example would be palm oil based biofuel. Consumers purchase them with the assumption that because it is biofuel it is better for the environment than an equivalent fossil fuel product, which would be a rational decision. However, if they knew that the palm oil for that particular fuel had been sourced from virgin tropical rain forest cleared specifically to grow oil palm, they might instead choose a fossil fuel, they may consider reducing their overall fuel consumption.

Critically, consumers must also know that as part of a (largely) ethically motivated social system they are expected to know something about the origins of the products they choose to consume or trade. This 'duty of the consumer' is something that, IMO, is largely overlooked or trivialized, at least by most American consumers that I am familiar with. Naturally information about the source of a product can never be perfect and can be lost (who knows where the sliver for that Morgan came from?), but it does not need to be in order to discourage production methods that are widely regarded as unethical.

Kelly
31st March 2008, 12:14
DaveK, I couldn't agree with you more here. For a free market system to work properly it has to be based upon ethics and therefore the corporations we invest in have to be transparent enough that investors can at least use their own discernment in determining which companies are worthy to invest in. Theoretically, that sounds great, but how does one put such a system in place from a practical standpoint?

The average investor cannot hope to discern the ethics of a Wall Street investment, for on one hand those corporations hire mountains of lawyers to hide what they don't want the public to see and their lawyers literally live for the phrase, "We've got to hide our paper trails." Furthermore, they are very adept at doing so. And on the other hand any investor that wants to learn about the front company is greeted by glossy full-color brochures and multi-million dollar websites put together by slick ad agencies that could care less about printing the truth.

While I greatly admire your philosophical goals, I think asking the typical investor to wade through that intentionally vague and misleading mountain of deceit would probably take the typical investor months, or even years to accomplish, and Wall Street doesn't wait that long, does it?

It seems to me that to change the system, we'd have to virtually scrap every regulatory law now on the books and start from scratch in the attempt to restructure things so that it represented a truth and honesty based investment system. All this of course, also sounds nice and very high minded, never-the-less it isn't very likely to happen as long as Wall Street and the bankers ultimately fund both the political campaigns and the operating government.

It seems very nearly hopelessly entangled to me. Philosophically, it's easy to see what should be done, but we need a practical way to get there.

DaveK
31st March 2008, 13:41
[...]therefore the corporations we invest in have to be transparent enough that investors can at least use their own discernment in determining which companies are worthy to invest in. Theoretically, that sounds great, but how does one put such a system in place from a practical standpoint?

Bottom up. Consumer spending is a critical economic control point. While significant portions of our modern markets are highly abstract, at the bottom, if consumers are encouraged to buy products for which they have the information to make informed ethical decisions, then investors will eventually tend to fall in line.

This is partially addressed by the Country of Origin Labeling (http://www.ams.usda.gov/COOL/) movement. Extending labeling requirements to more products and to provide more detail about the conditions under which products were produced would be a major step in the right direction. Also, training consumers to prefer locally produced goods over those that have traveled long distances helps this cause. Besides being more efficient, it is easier to both verify and to care about the conditions nearby than far away (that is why we throw garbage 'Away', I suppose).


any investor that wants to learn about the front company is greeted by glossy full-color brochures and multi-million dollar websites put together by slick ad agencies that could care less about printing the truth.


Manipulation and outright cheating will always be a factor. I believe it is very important to structure the regulations such that industry sees the benefits in cooperating.

For example, it is easy to see that today environmentally sound products are preferred by consumers. This provides incentive for businesses to appear environmentally sound. If consumers, who often are aware that business will oversell themselves as 'green' to take advantage of this consumer awareness, as a collective, demand and widely recognize a strict set of standards and accounting practices for ethical products, then, despite the additional expense, it benefits business to participate in such a program, as it becomes a valuable product feature.

Government regulations can't just be a big stick waved at business to make them 'play nice'. When this happens then large businesses just become the government (I'm looking at you, Monsanto) and set things up however they like. The people of a country are the consumers and the government and the businesses, when regulating you can't step on the toes of one without hurting the other.


It seems very nearly hopelessly entangled to me. Philosophically, it's easy to see what should be done, but we need a practical way to get there.

Ah, one of my very favorite phrases, "You can't get there from here" :) It is the problem of, 'if everyone would just (drive less/vote more/pay attention/whatever)', there wouldn't be any problem!

To get there from here I think we need to focus on the mega-retailers. Take Wal-Mart for example, the entity everyone loves to hate, even as they shop there. Wal-Mart is infamous for its iron-fisted control of its supply chain. Its massive buying power allows it to dictate its terms to suppliers, who have essentially no choice but to comply or go out of business. It's also pretty much everywhere and must continue to expand its business and improve its consumer image.

I think that this puts Wal-Mart in a rather unique position. They can get there from here. By beginning a voluntary (and widely marketed) program of product certification they could instill into consumers a desire to know where their products come from and how they were produced. Such a program, administered by Wal-Mart and requiring strict compliance from their suppliers, would go a long way toward improving their public image as well as, hopefully, bringing awareness of and demand for ethically-produced consumer goods.

As consumers became aware of such a program and the reason for its existence, they would, assuming ethical behavior is favored (whether that is a natural tendency or a marketing-induced desire), more retailers would jump on the band-wagon.

Of course any large retailer could start the ball rolling. Chains such as Whole Foods have made a business of providing such products, but naturally they have no interest in encouraging a market where all products are local and organic as that would eliminate much of the incentive to shop in their stores rather than the nearby mega-mart. While suffering a bit from the slightly corny marketing, Terror Free Oil (http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/01/news/economy/oil_terror/index.htm) here in Omaha has the right idea. You have to give people a reason (beyond simple elitism) to want to pay more.

Trvlr45
6th April 2008, 18:05
No, this video is not a winner, Kelly. It is just bait...advocating government created credit over that of private banker created credit. Like the two makes a facking difference.

NOTHING, BUT NOTHING BUT GOLD AND SILVER WILL DO. Is there any part of it ANYONE on this board does not understand?
"Freedom to Fascism" by Arron Russo or "The Moneymasters" are both very good if you want an explaination of our illegal monetary system or better yet try to get a friend or family member who is still living in "Bubble Land" to see it. I realize I'm singing to the choir on this forum. The Moneymasters is over 3hrs long.